There is no limitations on how many safe countries you can travel THROUGH before applying for asylum status. As long as you apply for asylum status.

There should be a limit. This convention is an issue and should either be rewritten or completely disregarded. People are using the veneer of asylum seeking to migrate to countries they want to go to, someone in their right mind genuinely fleeing a war for the sake of their lives isn’t going to risk their life and families further than necessary getting on a dodgy dinghy. The only people who do that are grifters with no regards for the law.

Asylum spending is 0.25% of the budget. Oil subsidies are 2%. Priorities?

This Lemmy post has nothing to do with oil subsidies. 0.25% of the national budget of one of the largest economies in the world is still a lot of money and could go elsewhere.

which used to be 2 years, they were considering upping it to 5 years. Which is dumb.

Better yet, if you have arrived via a safe country, deportation. The Rwanda policy was a good answer to this issue.

The best thing we to do in caring for refugees is having settlement programmes to relieve our European neighbours such as the Mediterranean countries and Turkiye. Like what we did with Ukraine. I’d argue that debate even then is completely different from the small boats debate. Which in itself is completely different from the wider immigration debate as a whole.

Being anti people crossing the Irish Border, or the English channel on a small boat, is not an anti immigration or even anti asylum seeker sentiment. It’s a sake of national and even international security (in terms of crime gangs).